On Thu, 03 Aug 2017, Nicolas George wrote: > Another point where the bitmap fonts beat the vectorial fonts at tiny > sizes: you usually want your vectorial fonts anti-aliased, but at tiny > sizes it hurts readability. Even worse, the anti-aliasing is done wrong: > it is done without taking gamma correction into account. That means that > when 50% intensity is wanted, it produces 22% intensity instead: > black-on-white is too thick, white-on-black is too thin.
Professional, high-quality fonts *optimized for small sizes* will have specific glyph variations and "rendering rules" for the small sizes, and do not suffer from the annoying misplaced anti-aliasing effects (i.e. they will render about as nicely as a pixel-optimized bitmapped font). However that also requires that the font rendering engine do it perfectly (which in turn requires it to implement everything required, for whatever is using it to *enable* all of that and not screw it up when blitting the result, etc). So, I am not at all surprised that it is far easier to get better results for small sizes and terminal fonts using bitmapped fonts :-) It should be much faster for the terminal to use the bitmapped ones, too. -- Henrique Holschuh
